Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RESOLUTION
The DBM posits that this Court's ruling that fiscal autonomy means
preference in terms of cash allocation is not supported by the
deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, particularly
the discussions on the draft article on the Judiciary where the
concept of fiscal autonomy was, by its claim, introduced.
The Commissioner will recall that when the provision giving fiscal
autonomy to the judiciary was presented to the body, we were the
ones who denied to it the percentage of the budget because,
precisely, we wanted the judiciary to go through the process of
budget-making to justify its budget and to go through the
legislature for that justification. But we also said that after having
gone through this process, it should have fiscal autonomy so that
there will be an automatic and regular release of such funds.
The whole purpose of that provision is to protect the
independence of the judiciary while at the same time not giving
the judiciary what we call a position of privilege by an automatic
percentage.3 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) cralawl ib rary
The DBM further claims that the constitutional mandate to
automatically and regularly release funds does not preclude the
implementation of a cash payment schedule for all agencies,
including those belonging to the constitutional fiscal autonomous
group (CFAG). It explains the meaning of "cash payment schedule"
in the context of the budgetary process, from the enactment of the
general appropriations law to the release of appropriations, thus.
After the General Appropriations Act (GAA) is signed into law, this
Department, in coordination with the agency concerned, prepares
the financial plan for the year in accordance with its appropriations
under the GAA. The result of this exercise is embodied in
the Agency Budget Matrix or ABM which reflects the individual
obligation authority ceilings of the agency, called the allotment.
An allotment allows the agency to enter into a contract or
otherwise obligate funds although cash has not yet been received by
said agency. Simply put, allotments serve as a guarantee that the
national government will look for cash to support the agency's
obligations. Therefore, the closer the allotment is to the amount of
its appropriation, the better.
The approved allotment of an ordinary agency does not cover its full
appropriations, while those for entities vested with fiscal autonomy
always cover the full amount of its appropriations. For instance,
allotments for Personal Service of an ordinary agency only cover
those for filled positions. In contrast, the Personal Service
allotments of agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy are
comprehensively released, including those for positions that are
admittedly vacant. At the end of the year, whatever is unspent for
Personal Services, particularly for unfilled positions, translates to
savings, which may be used to augment other items of
appropriations.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Further, not all revenue collections are received at the start of the
budget year. The cash flow of the national government, like most
other public institutions, has its highs and lows depending on the
tax calendar. Thus, not all of the projected revenues are available
for spending at the start of the budget year.
It thus becomes imperative for the Executive Department,
through the DBM, to manage the release of funds through
implementation of cash payment schedules. For instance, if
collections for a given month meet the monthly revenue target,
then the NCA for that month shall cover 100% of the allotment. If,
however, collections do not meet the monthly revenue target, then
the NCA to be released may not cover 100% of the allotment. Add a
few more variables, such as amount of deficit and total
disbursement of agencies, then one gets a cash payment schedule
that varies on a monthly basis.4 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)cralawlibra ry
In support of this argument, the DBM cites a letter dated May 18,
1993 of then Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Antonio T. Carpio
(now a member of this Court) to the Secretary of Budget and
Management, regarding A.M. No. 92-9-029-SC then pending with
this Court.
"4) the Court will look to releases by the DBM of funds against the
approved budget of the Judiciary, in the full amount sought
and promptly upon notice; it is willing to consider and pass upon
suggestions by the DBM for scheduling of releases; x x
x"(Underscoring supplied) cralawlib rary
This is not to say that agencies vested with fiscal autonomy have no
reporting responsibility at all to the DBM. This is precisely the
reason why guideline No. 5 under the Resolution of 3 June [1993
states that the Supreme Court, or constitutional commissions
clothed with fiscal autonomy for that matter, may submit reports
relative to its appropriation "for records purposes only." The word
"may" is permissive [Dizon v. Encarnacion, 119 Phil. 20, 22
(1963)], as it is an auxiliary verb manifesting "opportunity or
possibility" and, under ordinary circumstances, "implies the possible
existence of something." [Supangan, Jr. v. Santos, G.R. No. 84663,
24 August 1990 x x x Interdependence will work only if it is
undertaken within the parameters of the Constitution."
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
* On Sick Leave.
**
On Leave.
2 "The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below
the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released."
3
II Record, Constitutional Commission 170 (1986).
5
Id. at 184 (underscoring supplied).
7The only exception would be the remote possibility noted in the Decision where total revenue collections are not even
sufficient to cover the total appropriations for the agencies with fiscal autonomy.
8 Rollo, p. 192.